Random Violence

Discuss the Questions

Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say.

SHARK ATTACK

Annabelle Cottee asked: There have been five fatal shark attacks in WA water in less than a year, leading to several calls for great white shark species to be removed from the protected species list. The great white shark is an apex predator which is vital to the ocean ecosystem. Why can't the authorities look into alternatives, such as a shark spotters program like they have in South Africa, or even shark nets? Why hasn't there been any research into why there are more shark attacks in WA? Has offshore mining in WA impacted on the fish supply?What do you think?

STREET VIOLENCE

Mila Yates asked: My husband and I recently returned from a holiday in Vietnam. We walked the streets of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, day and night and felt perfectly safe. We came home to hear of violent, drunken behaviour resulting in the deaths of young men on the streets of Sydney. How do the police and society in general address this problem? What is the solution?What do you think?

POLITICS AND LIES

Michael Mowle asked: It seems to me that the last several federal election campaigns, especially since 1996, have been characterised by a tendency to gross overstatements and even outright lies, particularly by opposition parties. We are now almost 2 years into the current election campaign, which has introduced additional notes of hysteria about some parties having dangerously extreme views, policies and values.Does the panel consider political parties could and should do better, or does it agree with The American Republican strategist Carl Rove who said that the easiest way to increase your political base was (and I quote from this weekend’s SMH ) “by scaring the shit out of stupid people”?What do you think?

LABOR VS GREENS

Donna Ross asked: I was a traditional Labor voter. I am now a member of the Greens. I made that change quite a while ago after listening to Bob Brown address the National Press Club in 1997.My question: Shouldn't the Labor party be examining their own relevance to their support base rather than blaming the Greens for vote stealing? I voluntarily jumped ship as I felt the Labor party, to quote Bob Brown back then was, 'back flipping and belly up in the shallow end of the pool'.What do you think?

GREENS – ENEMY OF GOOD?

Sophie Pieters-Hawke asked: Last week on Asylum Seeker Policy, you said that "The Greens have values and the Labor Party doesn't". Malcolm Turnbull also said that perfection is the enemy of the good. Given that you think that Labor has no values because they are willing to consider realistic options that are less than ideal, do you think that continuing to see people die at sea is better than anything that is not perfect? Where do the Greens draw the line between taking a strong moral position and being the enemy of the good?"What do you think?

RUDD RESURRECTION

Nicholas Wright asked: Given his collapsing poll numbers two years ago, why do commentators argue for Kevin Rudd’s ‘inevitable’ resurrection as the man to revitalise Labor’s vote?What do you think?

WRITERS – CANADA VS AUSTRALIA

Maya Newell asked: Richard Ford in your latest novel you describe Canada as a more tolerant and less oppressive world than America - where on the spectrum does Australia sit and what do you fear about our political direction?What do you think?

US POLITICS AND INEQUALITY

Josh Masters asked: Edward Conard, an ex-Bain Capital partner of Mitt Romney's, has said that growing income inequality in the U.S. has positive consequences for society, arguing that the promise of enormous wealth encourages innovators to take risks that sometimes lead to the creation of products or services with societal benefits. What is your view on the effect of expanding income inequality?What do you think?

Okay Q&A is live from 9:35 Eastern Standard Time and simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag that just appeared on your screen.

Well, over the weekend a 24 year old surfer was fatally attacked by a great white shark north of Perth. This latest death has sparked the national debate on how we should respond. We've received a number of questions on this issue, including this one from Annabelle Cottee.

SHARK ATTACK

ANNABELLE COTTEE: There have been five fatal shark attacks in Western Australian waters in the last year, leading to several experts calling for the great white shark to be removed from the protected species’ list. The great white shark is a apex predator, which is vital to the ocean's ecosystem. Why can't the authorities look into alternative measures to reduce shark/human contact, such as nets or the shark spotter's program like they have in South Africa or why haven't they conducted research into what's causing the increase in shark attacks, like offshore mining?

TONY JONES: Let’s start with Peter Craven.

PETER CRAVEN: I'm on the side of the great white shark, of course. I think it’s...

HIS HONOUR: Do you see it as a contest, do you?

PETER CRAVEN: Well, I mean it's not that I actually would want the shark to go out and eat Western Australian surfers but I mean they say they're not going to find the shark in question, the particular killer, and preserve the species and, as the young lady says, for heaven's sake find some other decent way of looking after the surfers and swimmers.

TONY JONES: Richard Ford, I think you, as a younger man at least, were a hunter?

GREG HUNT: As an older man too.

TONY JONES: As an older man. Would you hunt sharks?

GREG HUNT: No. I think if you want to keep from getting eaten by a shark, don't go where the shark is.

TONY JONES: So don't swim, for example?

GREG HUNT: No, swim somewhere else. I mean to a shark you're a hamburger basically, you know. So just don't go there. I mean I think someone was telling me today that sharks are - as apex predators that great whites are increasing in numbers in the seas. I think that's actually not true. I think shark numbers - populations all over the globe are in decline. So, you know, preserving sharks seems to me to be much more valuable than preserving surfers or preserving swimmers.

TONY JONES: Joel Fitzgibbon?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Might make for a new novel, Richard.

GREG HUNT: I think that novel has already been written.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: And the movie.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Look, I'm with the others. Other than for the national rugby league, I'm with the sharks. Newcastle Knight’s supporter of course. Look, it makes sense to me that it’s their territory...

TONY JONES: That would have done really well in Melbourne by the way.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Yeah, I'm sure it did. Yes. Well, they’ll learn one day. Look, no, it's their habitat and they should be protected and I think Richard's right, people have got to learn to be more discerning about where they surf.

JENNIFER HEWETT: But I think it's worth kind of trying to understand why there have been so many shark attacks in recent years and whether it is to do with the fact that they're now on the protected list. I don't think it does any harm to have some more research. I grew up in Western Australia. Everyone used to swim out to sea and now if you go swimming to Western Australia, you stick very, very close to the shore and, all right, maybe you have to do that but I think it's worthwhile having a little bit of research exactly what's happening.

TONY JONES: Have you got any sympathy for people who want to cull, who are asking for the great white to be taken off the protected species list like, for example, the West Australian Fisheries Minister?

JENNIFER HEWETT: Well, I'm not sure if he's asking for that exactly. He’s kind of talking about maybe they need to do some research. Look, I have some sympathy with the idea that it would be nice to be able to swim in Western Australian waters these days without feeling as if you're under attack but realistically you're actually not. I mean five sounds a lot but, I mean, you know, the old statistic of compared to, you know, the deaths on the roads, it's nothing. But I do think if these numbers increase there will be pressure to do something but, frankly, nothing much is going to be done.

GREG HUNT: Well, I actually, just over a year ago, went shark cage diving with the great whites off Port Lincoln and to be in the water and to be surrounded by I think there were, to the best count, about seven of these enormous creatures, two of which were about five metres and literally as close away as Jennifer is and no offence.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Snap.

GREG HUNT: To have you smile at them, they smile at you and they smile at you they really smile at you. You get a sense of the...

TONY JONES: Are you talking about journalists or sharks?

GREG HUNT: I was talking journalists.

PETER CRAVEN: I'm still with the sharks.

GREG HUNT: I couldn’t make that reference. But you get a sense of the majesty of these creatures. At the same time we've got a duty to protect people. Look, what are the practical things we can do? Every time you go in the water, if you do into deep water, if you’re in Australia you know there's that potential risk and we’ve got to be aware of that. So the first thing is to educate people on risk. The second thing is I do think, and this goes to Annabel's point, there is a reasonable case for doing research as to what has changed. Is it just random chance in relation to these five tragedies or has there been some sort of change in human behaviour or change in shark behaviour? I think the research is important and if the research shows that something significant has changed as opposed to random, I'm not opposed to something such as shark netted areas for swimming. I think we do it in the east coast and there are some places in other parts of Australia. So I think we've got to be practical but at the end of the day this is Australia and if you go in the water you go there with knowledge.

TONY JONES: Briefly, what if the research showed they were acquiring a taste for humans?

GREG HUNT: Look, I honestly doubt that. I think, as Richard said, that novel has been written and I think that's a little bit mythical. But if we are in their space it's the same as if you're in the Northern Territory and you go into crocodile waters. You take those risks. And I think we just need to make sure that people are as well educated as possible and that where we can take precautions, such as netting or surveillance in particular, then I think we have a duty to do that.

TONY JONES: Okay, finally, let's hear from Sarah Hanson Young on this and the questioner actually asked whether offshore mining might have something to do with it, I presume in terms of limiting the number of fish that they can actually eat.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: And disrupting their natural habitat. Look, I don't know but that's a good question and we do need to have a look at the research there. One of the things that strike me...

TONY JONES: So would you like to see research into whether offshore mining is actually causing sharks to eat people?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Into what it is that’s bringing these sharks closer than they have been before and that is predominantly what is being found out in terms of Western Australia. But of course, you know, I come from South Australia and, Greg, you've been swimming with our sharks and, you know, periodically there are shark attacks in South Australia as well. I think the key thing is that we don't really know much about this species. We think they're amazing and, you know, we watch movies about them and we read books about them but we actually haven't got that much scientific knowledge about why they behave the way they do and perhaps this is something the Federal Government could work with their State colleagues on. You know, a bit of a focus on some research about shark behaviour and what we can do.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Perhaps they could even work with the Greens.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Perhaps they could.

TONY JONES: That really is going too far. Judging from other questions and comments coming into us, death by shark attack is more comprehensible than random killing by strangers. That's what happened to 18 year old Tom Kelly in Kings Cross last week and it prompted our next question from Mila Yates.

STREET VIOLENCE

MILA YATES: My husband and I recently returned from a holiday in Vietnam. We walked the streets of Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi day and night and felt perfectly safe. We came home to hear of violent, drunken behaviour resulting in the deaths of young men on the streets of Sydney. How do the police and society in general address this problem? What is the solution?

TONY JONES: Let's go around the panel. Joel Fitzgibbon?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, that is a tough one, Tony. I don’t pretend to have all the answers but I think the solutions are myriad and it starts with early education, intergenerational, unemployment, all those social problems we have to overcome and then beyond that, of course, I suppose it's always more police, more law enforcement, more education, even more transport, because 7:30 had a report tonight suggesting that getting people out of places like Kings Cross early in the morning is difficult in itself and causes problems. But, you know, I might be old school but I am with those who think that late opening is a real problem and I think...

TONY JONES: Are you with the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who laid the blame at the foot of Sydney's Lord Mayor - the feet of Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore. He called her the queen of grog, who turned the city into an inebriate’s spittoon?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, Paul is always right. Look, alcohol is obviously a problem, even the range of alcoholic drinks available. But, of course, drugs, illicit drugs are a problem but I still believe that closing hotels and other venues earlier would be of help.

TONY JONES: Jennifer Hewett, you're a Sydneysider.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Yes, I am and I think, in a sense, Kings Cross is one of those just accidents waiting to happen almost every night. I really think it's amazing to look at somewhere, as Richard would know - you look at New York City, you look at Times Square, how they managed to clean that up and yet we find almost impossible to do in Kings Cross. Every kid these days, if they're going to work in a bar, has to learn - go and do a training course on the responsible service of alcohol. This is a joke. It turns out, of course, you know, they don't have any idea what to do in terms of serving people but, more importantly, neither do the management. It is not enforced. In Kings Cross, for example, I don't understand why there is not far more police on the beat all the time; why people who are obviously going to be a problem are not taken care of by police, you know, early on. This poor young boy was talking - you know was walking early in the night but clearly it's also an issue, you know, and a bigger issue later in the evening. I think one of the police officers said something like if you are hanging around the Kings Cross late at night, you're either going to be a victim or an offender. Now, I think that's just ridiculous and I do think it is a problem. I agree with Joel. I think it's a problem some of the late night opening hours. I don't agree that a lot of the small bars - it’s a fact that there's just more places you can go. Some of those small bars, sure, may have problems but mostly it's the larger areas that are difficult and you really need a very big police presence. You need the idea of undercover police and I think you also need a much greater idea - I mean the Australian Hotels Association has been very good at restricting, you know, a lot of activity or making sure they have a lot of freedom to operate. I think there should be much kind of tougher conversations on them about their responsible service of alcohol.

TONY JONES: Peter Craven, same problem in Melbourne or different?

PETER CRAVEN: Well, there have been - there have been comparable problems in the club districts of Melbourne over the years. I think basically you need a lot more coppers on the streets. You probably need to control those huge, impossible drinking venues and, you know, do something about the availability of street level drugs.

TONY JONES: Yeah, it’s a bit of an irony about what happens in Sydney. Greg Hunt, bars open until 3am, buses stop at 1am.

GREG HUNT: Look, that is actually a big part of the problem that - I think you've got two things here. One is, as Jennifer talks about, responsible service of alcohol and what's that mean? That means that there's got to be real enforcement where the licensee is engaged in allowing, you know, his or her people to push alcohol on to those who are clearly over the limit and the second...

TONY JONES: We are assuming, of course, that alcohol is the culprit here.

GREG HUNT: It’s a part of the problem.

TONY JONES: It certainly is in a lot of cases. We don't know in this particular case of this young man. It could be ice, or some other form of drug.

GREG HUNT: Sure, but that...

TONY JONES: It could be madness.

GREG HUNT: That then leads to the second issue, which is the disconnect between closing hours and transport and there needs to be an equivalency. If closing hours are 3 o’clock then transport has to go to 3. If transport is only going to go until 1 o’clock, closing hours should be 1 o’clock. The two have to be in alignment. That's not going to solve everything but it gives us the best shot to disperse people as quickly as possible.

TONY JONES: Richard Ford, it's a universal problem, isn't it? I mean we just heard about New York and, of course, the way New York was cleaned up was to get rid of the all the vagrants and the homeless people. That was one of the key elements that was pulled off by the mayor at the time.

RICHARD FORD: They went somewhere though. They just went to somebody else's municipality. They're human beings. They go someplace else and live. It seems to me everybody is talking about violence in cities as if it were an executive function, as if it were a police issue, as if - it seems to me that these are sort of short-term solutions and that they are treating the circumstances of violence and actually not treating the causes of violence and I guess this makes me a sort of an American liberal but what I - and I am, I suppose. But what it seems to me that you have to treat are the root causes, the endemic causes of the violence, which is to say disenfranchisement of people, somehow the culture or the society not taking into itself its weakest and taking care of them. In America, of course, we have everybody has a gun in America. Nobody's going to begin to take those things away from you but I think actually Australia doesn't have that kind of problem. Everybody's not armed in Australia but it seems to me...

TONY JONES: Unfortunately the problem here is that it seems to be the case that it's not as easy to kill people with your fists but you still can and it happens a lot.

RICHARD FORD: Sure, but the causes of violence are never going to be addressed by police functions and by treating the circumstances, it seems to me.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson-Young?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well I think, like Joel, that there needs to be a variety of responses and I don't think there's one silver bullet to any of this. I do think the public transport issue is something that could be addressed and could be addressed quickly by government. I was in Melbourne today and the Greens in Melbourne were talking about - reflecting on what's going on here in Sydney, maybe they should extend late night transport on Fridays and Saturdays and see if that actually makes a difference in Melbourne. So there are things that we can do but going back to the root cause of, you know, why people are angry and violent and, you know, why they're in that situation in terms of whether it's drugs or alcohol. Those things can't be solved just because politicians are shocked at what's been written on the front page of the paper that day.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's move on to a different subject. Our question comes from Michael Mowle.

POLITICS AND LIES

MICHAEL MOWLE: Thank you, Tony. It seems to me that over the last several federal election campaigns, especially since 1996, they have been characterised by a tendency to gross overstatement and even outright lies, particularly by Opposition parties. We are almost two years into the current campaign, and which has introduced additional notes of hysteria about some parties having dangerously extreme views, policies and values. Does the panel consider our democratic parties could and should do better or does it agree with American Republican strategist Carl Rove who said that the easiest way to increase your political base was, and I quote from this weekend's Sydney Morning Herald, by scaring the shit out of stupid people?

TONY JONES: Richard Ford, we'll start with you. Carl Rove...

RICHARD FORD: What would you like me to say, Tony?

TONY JONES: I would like you to reflect on whether Carl Rove had that right?

RICHARD FORD: Scaring the shit out of stupid people?

TONY JONES: Whether it worked.

RICHARD FORD: It doesn't sound very democratic to me. It shouldn't even be very Republican in fact. It’s just...

TONY JONES: But did it work, I suppose, was the question that’s being raised?

RICHARD FORD: Well, Carl Rove is a tough guy and he ran Bush's campaigns and he was the brain behind the brain-less and so he knows what of he speaks. But, I mean, it is a democratic society, just as this is a democratic society and, you know, scaring the shit out of people isn't a way to run a democratic society. People are, in many ways, scared enough already when the government, such as in America, doesn't work. So, no, I think that's rubbish.

TONY JONES: Jennifer Hewett.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Well, I think you've obviously got a bit of a breakdown that’s going on here in the political situation and the public, I think, is very disenchanted with politics and politicians of all sorts. So I don't think but that's also reflecting a broader problem. I mean you've got many of the same issues, I think, in the US. You've got many of the same issues in Europe. People are very unhappy often about the economy and so they like to blame politicians. I think the idea, though, that we've actually had a kind of an embracing of coarsening of society and a shouting match is partly to do with the media, partly to do with just the change in culture. But, yeah, I do think there's kind of more of an extreme view and extreme positions being put but, you know, that's the kind of democratic way. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and nor do I think you can or should stop it. I do think that one of the things about Australia compared to the US is that we've tended, often with difficult subjects, not to really kind of explore them and talk about them a lot. The fact that they are now talked about can make people uncomfortable but I think it's probably a good thing.

TONY JONES: Peter Craven?

PETER CRAVEN: I think the main thrust of the article Michael was talking about was the increasing extremism and populism of the Republicans recently, like the kind of immense difficulty Obama had with his budget and the way there's been a shift from the old establishment Republicans, whether they were rhinos - whether they were liberal Republicans or Cap C Conservatives, you’ve now got those tea-baggers who will kind of resist. I know it's a terrible pun but who will resist a president they would be agreeing with if he was on their side so that the...

TONY JONES: The questioner is suggesting the same thing is happening here or something similar is happening here. I think we’ve still got the microphone there. Is that what you were saying? Yes, the questioner?

MICHAEL MOWLE: Oh, me. Yes, I would like to see how your remarks would translate to the Australian situation.

TONY JONES: Yeah, Peter.

PETER CRAVEN: Well I mean we haven't got we have no voice - no voice in the Australian media, including the Tele or the Herald Sun which is anything like Fox News. I mean, I think Fox News is an immensely sophisticated devolution of things into the voice of raging opinion rather than reportage and commentary. I think it's done with great skill. I find it quite entertaining, you know, to watch as I'm having my lunch. I think Bill O'Reilly's a brilliant broadcaster but I would worry about that effect on the discourse and I think that's going hand in hand with the kind of extremism and the American right. I think Australian politics is radically unlike that, though I think there has been a drift on both sides of Australian politics to the right. I mean it's not so long ago that we were pondering the choices between Turnbull and Rudd and it's a long way our country has gone since then.

TONY JONES: Okay, Greg Hunt, you're a student of American politics. Is Carl Rove any kind of model?

GREG HUNT: Look, I think for Australia we're quite a different country. It's a hunger - one of the things, whether it's Joel or Sarah, I think they may agree, people are always aching for that sense of the higher. They're looking, yes, at their own circumstance but the vast majority of people are also looking at that sense of the ten and the 20 and the 30 years so you have to deal with both the present and the future and people are hungry for that. In terms of the current debate, the other thing that people want and they feel resentful about, is if there's a breach of trust. So they're hungry for trust and if there's a breach of trust then that, I think, plays into disaffection and it rebounds upon the whole of the parliamentary profession. Obviously we have a view on the largest breach of trust in the last few years.

TONY JONES: Which he's referring to the carbon tax promise. So, Joel Fitzgibbon, do you want to reflect on the nature of politics in Australia?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: But I don't think populism is anything new in Australian politics, nor do I believe scare campaigning is anything new. I mean Robert Gordon Menzies spent a lot of time talking about reds under the beds and it was probably the mother of all scare campaigns. What scares me about American politics, and we all see it more regularly these days, given the nature of the media, is that we tend to be about ten years behind them in everything that they do and I do fear for the future of Australian politics if that's the course we're heading down.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson-Young?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I guess I grew up under the Howard Government and there's a good example of someone who creates a problem, tells you it's a problem and then delivers a solution and says hey, presto, aren't I a genius? And, you know, that's what John Howard did on children overboard. That's what John Howard did during the Tampa. He scared people. He told them there was a problem, that they had to be worried about it and then he said that he'd fix it, when there wasn't a problem. You know, when did we make the issue of human rights, desperate people needing protection and safety, an issue of national security? I mean people coming here on boats as refugees is not a threat to our national sovereignty or our national security. Yes, we have to deal with it but it's a different issue to blow it up the way John Howard did. So it may not be as fanatical as it is in the US but I do think we are still struggling with what was introduced through those years and, you know, Joel, you and I may disagree on some things but I would assume that on this front you would agree that what John Howard did to this country in terms of turning around what it means to be patriotic, you know, when I believe what's fundamental about what makes Australia a great country is our sense of justice, the fair go and looking after each other, and I think he trashed that.

TONY JONES: I actually want to - we could get caught in talking for a long time about the past. I'm going to bring it to the present. If you'd like to continue the discussion check out the Q&A Facebook page. Our next question tonight comes from Donna Ross.

LABOR VS GREENS

DONNA ROSS: Hi. I was a Labor voter. I am now a member of the Green Party and I made that change in 1997 when I listened to Bob Brown's address to the National Press Club. My question is probably to Joel Fitzgibbon. Shouldn't Labor be examining their own relevance to their support base, rather than blaming Greens for their vote stealing? I voluntarily jumped ship, as I felt that Labor, as Bob Brown said back then, was back-flipping and belly up in the shallow end of the pool.

TONY JONES: Joel Fitzgibbon.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I'm very tempted, Donna, to turn the question back on you but Tony won’t probably let you. But I would like to ask you whether...

TONY JONES: No, I won’t but you can engage in a discussion.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: ...whether you believe the Greens are the same party they were back in 1997 because, as I said at state conference on the weekend, when I first knew the Greens they were pretty much a passive, relatively benign political grouping interested in the environment only. Now they are a political party with a very strong view in just about every corner of public policy, whether it be domestic or international, so I think the beast has changed...

TONY JONES: But that's why you struck an alliance with them, isn’t it, so that they could...

DONNA ROSS: So I just said I would hope, as a party, they would evolve into that and having a much more comprehensive platform and interest in all aspects of Australian life.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I think the Labor Party is the same centre left progressive party it was when I joined it something like 28 years ago. The world is certainly changing and how we respond to that change, of course, affects our decision-making but the Labor Party is also a major party with the weight of responsibility, a party of government very often, including right now at the federal level, and we don't have the luxury of running around with populace policies. We have to be responsible and pragmatic on some occasions and to get the balance right and I think if anything, more than anything else the Labor Party is about growing, for me at least, growing the national wealth and ensuring that that wealth is shared equally and it's about a sustainable economy which, of course, is one and the same. I think that's always been the case and I don't think it's changed.

TONY JONES: Joel Fitzgibbon, let me just intercede here. Is the Labor/Green alliance, as far as you're concerned, on the nose?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, people talk about this Labor/Green alliance. I mean what we have is a formal agreement to do certain things in the current parliament and Tony Abbott...

TONY JONES: Well, the Greens call it an alliance.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: ...Tony Abbott...

TONY JONES: And plenty of people on your side of politics have called it an alliance, we're just following.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, to answer it very directly, people look at the current hung parliament and they see chaos. That's the very nature of a hung parliament and when people see chaos, unfortunately for the government of the day, it reflects badly on the government of the day.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I think it reflects badly on the government of the day to have government whip describing the government of the day having a chaotic parliament.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, I’m talking about the parliamentary processes, Tony and when people look at the parliamentary processes...

TONY JONES: Well, let me ask you this, was it wrong for Labor to enter into a deal, an alliance as some people call it, with the Greens?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, the Labor Party entered into the agreement to form government because we believe it's best for the country when we are in government and Tony Abbott spent 17 days trying to negotiate a deal too, Tony. You take government when you can, not for the sake of power but because you think your policies are the best thing for the country and its people and that's what we did.

TONY JONES: So you still think the deal was a good thing to do?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I would never ever question a decision to take the opportunity to govern and therefore to deliver the party's policies.

TONY JONES: So it wasn't about making an agreement with the Greens, it was just about you getting into power?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, it was about making sure - it was about making sure - making sure the Labor Party has an ongoing opportunity to further progress its policies and the policies we believe are the best.

TONY JONES: Just to finish this little section, should the Green/Labor alliance, deal, whatever you want to call it, continue?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I think that when we agree with the Greens and we should be not shy to say so and when we disagree we shouldn't be shy to say so and that’s an important bit of product differentiation for the Labor Party.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson-Young.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, I think, you know, the parliament, yes, it's difficult. Hung parliaments always are and, you know, we haven't had one at the Federal level for quite some time but there's been several in the various State parliaments and they're not unusual around the rest of the world. Yes, it makes it more difficult because it's not just winner takes all. You do have to negotiate. You do have to put forward ideas and debate and get things through that way but, you know, your government, Joel, has passed 336 pieces of legislation successfully passed the parliament. You've only lost one and, in fact, it wasn't even your own bill, it was someone else's bill.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: That's a great tribute to us.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You know, this parliament hasn't been as chaotic as some of your members are now suggesting it has been. I think the Prime Minister...

TONY JONES: Well, I mean, you shot down an emissions trading scheme that could have saved Labor's bacon and you shot down the Malaysian Solution which equally could have done that on the asylum seeker issue. What it’s like having the whip hand over Labor policy?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, the emissions trading scheme, obviously that was in the last government. It wasn't in this particular scenario and in that case the Labor Party, instead of working with the Greens - and we tried. We put forward solutions. We wanted to negotiate. We wanted to talk. They didn't want to talk to us. They decided to cut us out and go and do a deal with the Opposition and you guys screwed them over. So...

GREG HUNT: Thanks for coming.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You know, you back-flipped...

GREG HUNT: We’ve been trying to be high minded here.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I think there could be a rewriting of history here, Tony.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You back-flipped on what it was that had agreed. We weren't going to agree to a deal that locked in failure and didn't tackle climate change. What we wanted to do was to put forward a scheme that actually would tackle climate change.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Just like on asylum seekers, Sarah, you wanted everything.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: No, Joel, it...

JOEL FITZGIBBON: You wanted the model that was perfect for you. On asylum seekers you were the only grouping in the parliament not prepared to reach some compromise so that we could have a workable solution.

TONY JONES: We've got a question on that subject. I’m going to go to that question now. It’s from Sophie Pieters-Hawke.

GREENS – ENEMY OF GOOD?

SOPHIE PIETERS-HAWKE: This question is to Sarah. I read last week that on asylum seeker policy you said that the Greens have values and the Labor Party doesn't. On the same issue Malcolm Turnbull said that perfection is the enemy of the good. Given that you think that Labor has no values because they're willing to consider realistic options that are less than ideal, do you think that continuing to see people die at sea is better than anything that is not perfect? Where do the Greens draw the line between taking a strong moral position and being the enemy of the good?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Can I - firstly I want to clarify something because the question the comments around values were actually not about refugee policy at all. It was in response to Paul Howes and Sam Dastyari who are the factional bully boys of the Labor Party suggesting...

JOEL FITZGIBBON: They’re the hard men of the right on the softer side.

GREG HUNT: You're the human face.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: ...suggesting - those comments were about the fact that the factional bully boys in the Labor Party were saying they'd prefer to see Tony Abbott have control of the Senate and give away everything that this Government has delivered than actually work with the Greens. So that's what those comments were about. They weren't about the issues in relation to asylum seekers. But I will take the rest of that question.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, they weren’t but...

TONY JONES: Yeah, we can. Briefly if you can.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: So firstly, I think we have to think about what it is that we're dealing with. These people who were forced to board boats in places like from places like Indonesia and Malaysia are doing that because they've got, they believe, no other option. It's between life and death for them. So what we need to be doing is going giving them a better, safer option, resettling more of those people, boosting the abilities - they are being assessed in these places by the UNHCR already but it's happening so slowly, so slowly, and we need to invest in that application process and then bring those people here safely. Those people who are boarding boats, the majority of them, the overwhelming majority of them (a) are found to be genuine refugees but (b) have already tried to go through the UNHCR but they get to such a point of self-desperation that they take that boat journey. So rather than the policy of saying okay, we'll just push everybody away, anywhere else but here, punish people for being refugees, that doesn't stop them being refugees.

TONY JONES: Okay.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: It doesn't provide them safety. What we should be doing is saving lives by not forcing them on boats in the first place.

TONY JONES: I want to hear from the rest of the panel on this. Richard, as an outsider you're watching this debate.

RICHARD FORD: All I know is that the second time that George Bush, the lesser, ran for President of the United States, Ralph Nader divided the vote against Bush and basically caused the Democratic Party, not singlehandedly, they had their own buffoonery to blame too, but helped cause the democratic party to lose the presidency and there was not talk for compromise. Nader was not a one issue candidate but he was a three issue candidate. He wouldn't talk to anybody and what happened was that, you know, the election went in the toilet for the Democrats and that was the end of it and it looks like that's what's going to happen here.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson-Young, I'll just get you to respond to that. Ralph Nader stood against Al Gore and George W. Bush. He took away enough votes from Al Gore and George Bush ended up getting elected.

RICHARD FORD: Stealing. Actually stealing the election.

TONY JONES: Well, George Bush ended up getting elected, whichever way you look at it, and was there for eight years. He certainly didn’t steal the second election. He was there for eight years. Now the question really is about whether you should put principles - very high principles - ahead of outcomes?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well what I think we should be doing is putting the solutions that the experts say will work and they are going to these places and giving people safer options and hope. And we've had today...

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Which experts, Sarah? Name them?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Today 200 academics from around the country who work on these issues have written to the expert panel and they've said refugees must have viable alternatives to jumping on boats; that deterring people from trying to reach safety doesn't make them safer, it pushes them into danger.

TONY JONES: Okay, you're not going to address the Ralph Nader question, are you or are you not?

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Well, look, I'm saying you asked about principles, Tony, and I'm saying this isn't just about principle, this is about practicality.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: The experts say this is what we should do. Let's get on and do it.

PETER CRAVEN: Yeah, well, good on him for that. But the facts of the matter are the Greens owe their considerable prestige and also their ability to frighten people to the fact that when Howard, as Sarah accurately says, turned the asylum seekers into a bogey, Bob Brown stood up in the Senate and was immensely admired across the country by speaking for justice and mercy. The problem which the Labor Party faces, at a time when everyone thinks they are going to be thrashed as no Labor Party, no Labor Government, has ever been thrashed before, is that they have lost the traditional prestige of a progressive party. The thing Geoffrey Robertson used to love saying that, you know, there's only an inch between conservatives and Labor but it's the inch in which we live, the Labor Party no longer has an automatic right among right-thinking swinging voters, let alone the people referred to by Paul Keating as the basket weavers of where? Of Balmain. I mean who on Earth I mean who could possibly, in terms of progressive, traditional Liberals, countenance the policies on asylum seekers of either of the major parties? I mean once upon a time under Fraser in the early days of Hawke we had a bipartisan policy on refugees...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Absolutely.

PETER CRAVEN: ...because both mobs from the major parties knew it was toxic, it would only appeal to the lowest common denominator to exploit this. The Greens, who I don't agree with on a hundred different things and I always live in fear that, you know, they would euthanase me or make me marry the man next door, the Greens have the utterly rational policy, that traditional policy, which you would expect from either of our parties on that issue.

JENNIFER HEWETT: But there is a very different issue here. I was very interested to hear Sarah talk about what's practical. I mean, what's practical, I mean I'm sure in principle that's great. Every refugee should be invited to come and live in Australia and if you did that...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: That's not what I said, Jennifer.

JENNIFER HEWETT: ...if you did that, if you had a much easier policy for people to encourage them to just come to Australia without the need to get on boats, without feeling the need to get on boats, you’d have to also accept that the numbers would grow exponentially. Now, that's fine if that's what you say but you don't ever actually say that. You don't actually say there’d be hundreds of thousands of people. You just pretend that, in fact, we'd have much the same numbers or maybe a few more.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Do you know how many people there are in Indonesia at the moment?

JENNIFER HEWETT: I'm sure there's a lot of them.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: No. No. But do you know how many there are?

JENNIFER HEWETT: No. No. No, I don’t know how many.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I was in Indonesia last week and...

TONY JONES: Is that really relevant? I’m just going to break in...

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: There’s 8,000. 8,000.

TONY JONES: 8000 but how many tens of, perhaps even hundreds of thousands are there in Malaysia, which are feeding to Indonesia?

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

JENNIFER HEWETT: You can argue - you can argue...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: You have a regional approach.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Oh, a regional approach.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Like what Fraser did.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Everyone tries to get a regional approach.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: Like what Fraser did. It worked.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Everyone tries to get a regional approach. The numbers are so much greater. It is fine if you want to say that, Sarah, but just accept what the practical result would be and don't talk about principle and then also say at the same time it's practical. And as far as the Labor Party is concerned, the idea that it was necessary to form government to get an agreement, alliance, whatever you want to call it - whatever John wants to call it - it actually was not. I mean I think in retrospect now many people in the Labor Party think it was a great mistake. The trouble for the public, they're kind of incredibly confused because one of the reasons that the Gillard Government is so unpopular is because of the carbon tax, the Labor Party did in agreement with the Greens and yet at the same time you're now attacking the Greens. For the public, for most of the public, I think it's seen as too little too late and actually confusing.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's move on to another political question. This one’s from Nicholas Wright. Nicholas Wright.

RUDD RESURRECTION

NICHOLAS WRIGHT: Given the collapsing poll numbers only a couple of years ago, why did commentators argue for Kevin Rudd's inevitable resurrection as the man to revitalise Labor's vote?

TONY JONES: Jennifer Hewett, I'll start with you. You were the last...

JENNIFER HEWETT: I thought you were going to ask Joel.

TONY JONES: Well, we will go to Joel but I just want to get your perspective as a journalist.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I’m sure you will.

TONY JONES: Because the commentators and the journalists are saying this is happening. The politicians are saying it's not.

JENNIFER HEWETT: Well, the politicians always say it's not until it does, of course and I think the role of the journalist still in society is to try and explain what is going on kind of behind the scenes and what is very clearly going on behind the scenes is that the Gillard experiment, the Gillard Prime Ministership, has not worked out as well as the people who put her in power thought it would and this is leading to a great reassessment. And the fact is that Kevin Rudd, when he was deposed, was far more popular than Julia Gillard is now. And there is still a sense, I think, increasing sense within the Labor Party, that the only way to kind of try and get some of the seats back - they're very, very nervous, I think, about what's going to happen at the next election - that Kevin Rudd may not win but a lot of backbenchers would think, well, he's got more chance of saving them their seats. So I think that's what's going to happen and it's a question of time. But you won't get the politicians saying that any time soon.

TONY JONES: Does the Opposition think it's a question of time, Greg Hunt?

GREG HUNT: Look, I think it's likely that there will be a change of leader before the end of year and the reason why, in response to your question, is that the current Prime Minister's support has collapsed. The public has, I'm sorry to say, lost trust largely with not just the Prime Minister but the current party. So the disease that New South Wales Labor had, where they rotated Premier after premier after premier after premier, is migrating to Canberra and the debate that we're seeing tonight between Joel and Sarah...

TONY JONES: New South Wales never rotated back to a previous Premier, which has been suggested here.

GREG HUNT: Well, and the debate we're seeing tonight is, in a sense, a manifestation of what occurred with the New South Wales right. We have the New South Wales right trying to distance themselves from the Greens, which is a proxy for the carbon tax, and they're now trying to prepare the ground, I think, to go back to Kevin Rudd and, again, it's that same issue not really about the leaders but about people outside the parliament having control over the parliament and effectively taking control of the Australian Prime Ministership.

HIS HONOUR: All right, let’s ask someone from the New South Wales right, who actually is in the parliament, Joel Fitzgibbon?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I can just remind Greg first, you know, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and now maybe Mal cum Turnbull again. It seems to be of an around. But I’m just not sure what Nicholas was asking then. He talked about two years ago, what journalists were saying two years ago. I just want to be clear about...

TONY JONES: He was talking about the - he referred to collapsing poll numbers two years ago, although I think we know that that wasn't exactly the case and that Kevin Rudd was, in fact, in a position to beat the Government at the time that he was overthrown. Beat the Opposition, I should say.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, it might come to a shock to everyone here but populism matters in politics and no matter what political party you're talking about, if leaders remain unpopular long enough they will inevitably stop leading the party. But Julia Gillard's doing good work. She's got a long way to go and hopefully...

TONY JONES: Well, on the basis of what you just said...

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: It was kind of ringing endorsement.

TONY JONES: That rather suggests her time might be limited or at least dependent on her poll numbers?

GREG HUNT: Joel, I'll guarantee that Tony leads - Tony Abbott, not Tony Jones - Tony Abbott leads us to the next election. Will you guarantee that Julia Gillard will lead Labor to the next election?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I can't guarantee you that the Newcastle Knights will make the final eight but I'm very confident they will. I’m every hopeful they will and I will be very pleased if they do.

TONY JONES: Okay, why...

GREG HUNT: I'll take that as a comment.

TONY JONES: Why are some senior Labor figures still orchestrating the numbers for Kevin Rudd's return?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I'm not sure that they are, Tony.

TONY JONES: You're not sure?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, they're not. There's no active...

TONY JONES: You’re chief government whip.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: There’s no active...

TONY JONES: And, in fact, in the paper this morning, you're one of the people accused of orchestrating numbers.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Yeah, I keep reading this in the paper and, again, I thank my colleagues for the publicity but the reality is...

TONY JONES: Do you regard that as good publicity?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: The reality is, Tony, that Julia Gillard has plenty of time between now and the next election and I believe her polling numbers will improve and I'm very hopeful that they’ll improve and I'll be very pleased when they do improve.

TONY JONES: If they do not?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, that’s too hypothetical. I mean...

TONY JONES: Well, it’s not particularly hypothetical given what you said in your first answer.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, again, Tony, no one would be more pleased than me if the Newcastle Knights make the eight. I'm hopeful they will. I think they will but I'm not going to, as Paul Howes was prepared to do, put my house on anything in federal politics at the moment. I want Julia Gillard to lead us to the next election and I think she will.

TONY JONES: Let me put it this way: is Kevin Rudd's return to the leadership this year completely out of the question?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I think it's unlikely.

TONY JONES: Is it completely out of the question?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, look, I get one vote in the Caucus, Tony.

TONY JONES: And your vote would...

JOEL FITZGIBBON: I can't predict you know, they say a week's a long time in politics. In this environment, you know, six months is an eternity but, you know, I expect once the current policies bed down, the polling numbers will improve and Julia Gillard will be allowed to get on with the job.

MAYA NEWELL: Richard Ford, in your latest novel you describe Canada as a place which is more tolerant and less oppressive than America.

RICHARD FORD: I don't think I said less oppressive. I think you said that.

MAYA NEWELL: Where do you think Australia sits on this sort of spectrum and is there anything that you fear about the direction our current political climate is taking?

RICHARD FORD: Is there anything that I fear about the apparent direction that the Australian political climate is taking?

MAYA NEWELL: Yeah or maybe observations.

RICHARD FORD: You know, when I I used to teach journalism years ago and I once had a class of young journalists and I said to them - this is the time during Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton - and I said, “Who of you believes Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?” Several hands went up. And I said, "Who of you believes that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" Several hands went up. And I said, "How many of you know?" No hands went up and so I said, "What good do you think it does the world to harbour feckless opinions about things that you know nothing about?" So that's a longer way of saying that I don't know. So I mean I could...

TONY JONES: Let me bring...

RICHARD FORD: I could run my mouth here and say a lot of rubbish but why? Why should I? I mean, we don't share a common border, you know, and so I'm much more concerned about, you know, in my heart of hearts, in the quickening night, I'm much more concerned about immigration issues in Mexico. I'm much more concerned about our relationships with Canada and that may make me sort of just a local yokel and I certainly have global concerns, probably as we all do, but to have an opinion about Australian politics, nuh, uh.

TONY JONES: Let's go to the first part of the question, which is actually about Canada and which is your latest book's title. You actually suggested it's a sort of refuge from America and I'm wondering why that is. What is it about Canada that you think is a refuge and why is it you think America beats on you, as you put it?

RICHARD FORD: Well, I think anybody here who has been to America knows that America beats on you. You don't have to live there. All you have to do is get off the plane in LA or get off the plane in Chicago. I mean American is an exigent place. You're constantly in contact or, if not, in conflict with other people's rights, with their sense of their personal space, with their sense of their priorities, with who's carrying a gun, who's not carrying a gun. America's a very violent place. Canada's not so much like that. I mean I'm an American and I'm a patriot and I'm perfectly happy to be all those things but every time I cross the Canadian border and go up into the Saskatchewan or go up into Manitoba, what I feel is something lifting off of me. Now, of course, it may just be the simple matter that I go some place different and I'm not in my home country and maybe everybody feels that way but in Canada, you know, it's not just because the draft resisters went there in the '60s. There’s really actually something more tolerant about Canada than is true of America and you can go stem to stern across the country of Canada and you will find that to be true.

JENNIFER HEWETT: But part of America's appeal is, I think, that kind of very trusting nature of the society and the fact that it gives it all that energy.

RICHARD FORD: It does indeed. There's more good to it than there is not good to it and, in fact, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, even though it was an accident that I lived there at all, which is to simply say the accident of birth. But, yeah, I mean much productivity, much ferment comes out of America but much productivity and much ferment comes out of Canada as well.

JENNIFER HEWETT: And also a great immigrant nation that continues to be the great immigrant nation. How do you think...

RICHARD FORD: I don't know that it's continuing to be such a great immigrant nation these days. I mean we don't have a very cogent and, in my view, a very palpable policy...

TONY JONES: I tell you what, I'm going to interrupt you to bring in a question actually about American politics and the rest of the panel can discuss that. You're watching Q&A. Remember you can send your web or video questions to our website. The address is on the screen to find out how to do that. Our next question is from Josh Masters.

US POLITICS AND INEQUALITY

JOSH MASTERS: My question is also directed to Richard. I hope your opinion on this isn't feckless. I recently saw that Edward Conard an ex partner of Mitt Romney’s from Bain Capital, had published a book in which he suggested that rising income inequality in the US had positive effects. He argued that the promise of extreme wealth might encourage innovators to take risks that might lead to the production of products or services that have societal benefits. I wonder what your view of the effect of rising income inequality is?

RICHARD FORD: Well, the first thing I would say is that how is that any different to how things are now? That's the first thing. But in general if you want to say that for the rich to get richer it will trickle down, well, that was Reagan's view and many people think Regan's view was right but those are all rich people. And whether they were rich now or rich then I don't know but things don't seem to work that way. You can say for the rich to get richer that all of that income will somehow trickle down literally and figuratively. I just haven't seen, nor have anybody that I know who seems credible - I haven't seen that true to happen, you know. The rich, you know, seem under adverse circumstances to keep their money and then when they have more salutary circumstances they keep their money.

TONY JONES: The Obama Administration right now ```is using that to tremendous advantage.

RICHARD FORD: And why not? And why not?

TONY JONES: With advertisements trying to undermine Mitt Romney’s credibility because he’s so rich. They’re calling for his tax returns. He won’t give his tax returns. They’re saying that he off-shored jobs, that - many - in fact there are multifarious things they're saying about him. Will that work?

RICHARD FORD: I've got no beef with any of that. I’ve got no beef with what Mitt Romney does with Mitt Romney’s money. That's his business. The whole Bain Capital issue to me is a red herring. You know, they don't want to say the things that they could say about him, which is that he's not very smart.

TONY JONES: Greg, Hunt, you're a student of American politics, we learnt earlier. What's your view about what’s going on in American politics right now? Do you share this idea that the American system is essentially based on inequality?

GREG HUNT: Look, I don't accept that basic proposition. America, it’s an amazing place to live. I was fortunate to live there for couple of years and it’s Yin and Yang. You see this incredible intensity. You see it’s a magnet to people and ideas from all around the world and it's still the most creative force in the world in terms of the dynamic of ideas and of production. But at the same time there is a real underclass. There's no question that there's an underclass that exists in America in a way that it doesn't in Australia and the challenge for America is to balance these two things out, not to give away the underclass in order to gain the greatness which goes with it. In a sense that's a lesser version or we have a lesser version of that same challenge here that as we aspire and as we give people that sense of possibility you don't want to let go those that are most at risk.

TONY JONES: Would you rather see Obama returned incidentally?

GREG HUNT: I will let the Americans decide for themselves.

TONY JONES: So you don't have an opinion, is what I mean?

GREG HUNT: I don't think it's appropriate, frankly, for an Australian parliamentarian to be trying to tell another democracy how they should make their decisions.

TONY JONES: Peter Craven?

PETER CRAVEN: Would I rather see Obama return?

TONY JONES: No, just a reflection on the question, which was really about the nature of America.

PETER CRAVEN: I think in relation to what Richard was saying, I mean, America is a much more radical society, I think, than Australia and I would imagine Canada, though I don't know much about Canada. The great Canadian literary critic Northrop Fry emphasises that at every point America is born and reborn in radicalism so that in many ways it's much better than anywhere else in the world and in many ways it's worse. You know, think of I've been looking at Robert Caro's life of LBJ, not a particularly likeable man but the way he drove through what was just a postulate under Kennedy with the civil rights program, a man who was a genius of a fixer who created the, you know, that great drive of a great society. You've got that, then you’ve got, you know, in the ‘50s, you've got Joe McCarthy. It seems to me that, you know, it's fortunate that the Republicans have got a mild character in Romney and I hope to God that Obama wins. I mean, imagine trying to push through a national health program after the financial crisis.

RICHARD FORD: There would be none. There would be none.

TONY JONES: Joel Fitzgibbon?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I certainly agree with Greg, the US remains the centre of innovation and creativity and that's why it remains such a powerful country. Like Greg I’ll avoid backing winners. I think it is inappropriate. But I do think it will be a shame if Obama doesn't have an opportunity to see through his work. I mean he's been very, very unlucky. With the advent of the global recession that's put an enormous pressure on his program. At the same time he's got the Tea Party dragging the Republicans to the right.

TONY JONES: Perhaps very lucky in a sense, having the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court casting the deciding vote to keep Obama Care, his health care program in place.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, that’s right.

TONY JONES: One of the biggest surprises in politics, Richard.

RICHARD FORD: That gives me the creeps that he actually voted for the health care policy. It's what we call there's a skunk in the woodpile somewhere on that one. I can't help feeling that the chief justice actually was setting up some malignant something or other going on in the congress. I don't know what it is because it certainly is the case that when he voted as he voted that certainly polarised the issue much more than it was polarised before.

TONY JONES: Sarah Hanson Young, your reflections on America and then we’ll have to go because we’re nearly out of time.

SARAH HANSON-YOUNG: I actually think the whole debate over the health care scheme really sums up where things are at. Can you imagine if we were having that debate in Australia about the less privileged in our society being able to access basic health care? I mean that is the starkest difference between Australia and America in the last 12 months that I can see.

Okay. Next week Q&A will be joined by ‘60s wild child and notorious editor of Oz Richard Neville; Minister for Community Services and the Status of Women Julie Collins; Shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne; and author and social commentator Jane Caro. Thanks for your company tonight. Until next week, goodnight.

He has published six novels and four collections of stories, including the Sportswriter, Independence Day, A Multitude of Sins and, and most recently, The Lady of the Land. Independence Day was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, the first time the same book had won both prizes.

Richard was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1944 as the only child of a travelling salesman. He briefly attended law school at Michigan State University in 1968 before entering the University of California in 1970 where he studied writing.

Richard has also worked as a sports writer for Inside Sports Magazine and has taught writing and literature at the University of Michigan, Princeton University and Williams College.

He lives in New Orleans, Louisiana with his wife Kristina. He travels frequently and also spends time on a plantation in the Mississippi Delta and at his cabin in Chinook, Montana.

Joel Fitzgibbon is the Government's Chief Whip. He has been the member for Hunter, a rural electorate in NSW’s Hunter Valley, since 1996, having succeeded his father who held the seat for 12 years. He has lived in Cessnock, a town within the Hunter electorate, all his life.

In 1978, after leaving school, Joel completed an apprenticeship as an automotive electrician. He then ran his own small business for the next ten years. He also served eight years as a Councillor on Cessnock City Council, including a term as Deputy Mayor.Joel has continued his studies as a mature age student, and in 2004 completing a Graduate Certificate in Business Administration at the University of Newcastle.

Since his election to parliament Joel has held a variety of different positions in government and opposition. He was a senior front-bencher in the Rudd government until 2009, when he was forced to resign as Minister for Defence for a breach of the ministerial code of conduct.

Greg Hunt is the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage.

A tenacious parliamentary performer with considerable experience in foreign affairs and environmental issues, Greg is a key part of the Opposition’s attack on the Government and is expected to play a major role in shaping the coalition’s fortunes in the years ahead.

Greg has represented the seat of Flinders, on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula, since Peter Reith retired in 2001. He was born in 1965 and has lived in the area for much of his life except when studying and working overseas. His father, Alan, was a State Upper House MP for the region for more than 30 years.

Greg graduated in Law from Melbourne University with first class honours and won a Fulbright scholarship to Yale University, where he completed a masters in international relations.

Subsequently Greg worked at the UN Centre for Human Rights, as the associate to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and as an adviser to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. In 1998 he was Australia’s chief observer for elections in Cambodia.

When Sarah Hanson-Young was elected to the Senate at the 2007 election, she achieved three significant milestones: she was the first Greens Senator to be elected in South Australia, the youngest person ever elected to the Senate and the youngest woman ever elected to the Federal Parliament.

She is regarded as a rising star in the Greens Party, a leading member of the new Greens generation.

With the Greens achieving anunprecedented result in the 2010 federal election, giving them a House of Representatives seat and at least one Senator in each State, the party now holds the balance of power in the Senate. This means Sarah and her Greens colleagues are at the centre of most major policy controversies. As the spokeswoman for immigration Sarah is prominent in the public debate over the vexed issue of asylum seekers.

Sarah was born in Melbourne in 1981 and grew up near Orbost in East Gippsland. She subsequently attended the University of Adelaide where she studied social science and was active in student politics, becoming president of the Students’ Association. She has a background of activism and community campaigning in such areas as the environment, human rights and issues involving youth and women, and has been a committed advocate for Amnesty International.

Jennifer Hewett, one of Australia's leading political and business journalists, has been writing for the nation's newspapers for 35 years.

Since January this year she has been national affairs columnist for The Australian Financial Review, specialising in coverage of major business and political stories and where and how these different interests intersect. Previously she was national affairs writer for The Australian, and earlier had worked for the AFR and The Sydney Morning Herald. She also regularly appears as a commentator on TV and radio and has worked in New York and Washington as a foreign correspondent.

Jennifer was born in Perth. She has a Bachelors degree from the University of WA and a Masters degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She had three children with her late husband Peter Ruehl, an American journalist and one of Australia's wittiest and most irreverent columnists, who died suddenly in April last year.

Peter Craven is one of Australia's best known critics and cultural commentators. He writes about literature, theatre, film and television.

Peter began an English degree at Monash University before going on to study a Master of Arts at the University of Melbourne at the age of 27. While there, he met Michael Heyward and the pair cofounded and ran the literary magazine Scripsi, from 1981 to 1994.

Peter’s reviews, articles and essays on literature, opera, film and television have been published in The Australian, the Oxford Guide to Contemporary Writing, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review of Books, Best Australian Essays, Best Australian Stories and the Quarterly Essay.

He has also been on the board of the Australian Book Review.

Introduction 0:00

SHARK ATTACK 1:11

STREET VIOLENCE 8:26

POLITICS AND LIES 15:57

LABOR VS GREENS 24:56

GREENS – ENEMY OF GOOD? 31:06

RUDD RESURRECTION 40:16

WRITERS - CANADA VS AUSTRALIA 46:05

US POLITICS AND INEQUALITY 50:47

Warning: This page shows unmoderated tweets, so if you see a tweet that you think offends, please report it to us so that we can review and take appropriate action.